Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Brad Sallows]

Janitorial, food service, PSW, nursing, medical technicians and practitoners, warehouse workers, manufacturing/assembly workers, onsite tradespeople, tradespeople that report to a yard/office and disperse from their, sanitation workers...

You're describing a lot of people whose work places mostly aren't going to be near a HSR terminal.

 

[PrairieFella]

You're describing a lot of people whose work places mostly aren't going to be near a HSR terminal.

Public transit doesnt stop at the train station. Only in North America could we be so car-brained that the default assumption is that the HSR station will be either in the middle of nowhere and unserved by local transit or surrounded by a sea of parking lots so deep one dare not cross it to their jobs. Ever been to Europe, Brad? If so, ever been to Paris? If so, ever been to Gare du Nord? What about München Hauptbahnhof? Roma Termini? If so, you know what we should be aiming for.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

You're describing a lot of people whose work places mostly aren't going to be near a HSR terminal.

And a lot whose are. More if you build out even the barest hub and spoke system.

 

[ArmyRick]

I could accept HSR if our federal governments financial books were in order, we had a REALISTIC plan to pay down debt, had a growing economy (as opposed to investors and entrepreneurs fleeing Canada), and maybe god forbid, we were on our way to a surplus, then yeah, chipping in for an HSR would be worth risk.

How many FAILED "investments" have the Trudeau/Carney Liberals dumped big bucks into only to have failures? Or failed government programs like gun buy back? Yeah exactly.

Funny, how interested the Liberals are with this project but are A OK with blowing off the MOU and any movement whatsoever on O & G/pipelines. Again, this is something the international community is screaming for. And most Canadians. Or do we just stick to most of our oil going to the USA? Make up your mind.

Let the gas lighting begin. Its a Liberal proposal and many of you will bend over backwards to frame the argument to suit your views.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I could accept HSR if our federal governments financial books were in order, we had a REALISTIC plan to pay down debt, had a growing economy (as opposed to investors and entrepreneurs fleeing Canada), and maybe god forbid, we were on our way to a surplus, then yeah, chipping in for an HSR would be worth risk.

How many FAILED "investments" have the Trudeau/Carney Liberals dumped big bucks into only to have failures? Or failed government programs like gun buy back? Yeah exactly.

Funny, how interested the Liberals are with this project but are A OK with blowing off the MOU and any movement whatsoever on O & G/pipelines. Again, this is something the international community is screaming for. And most Canadians. Or do we just stick to most of our oil going to the USA? Make up your mind.

Let the gas lighting begin. Its a Liberal proposal and many of you will bend over backwards to frame the argument to suit your views.

I am a little concerned by how much you seem to know about my motivations, intent, viewpoint, etc. Of course if we had a conversation you might be able to confirm the validity of your assumptions. I have no doubt the discussion would also be less shouty and aggressive were we to meet in person

 

[Navy_Pete]

I've written repeatedly that what government can do is mobilize resources to achieve particular aims (and that mobilization tends to be inherently economically inefficient, but that's just part of the cost of achieving the particular aims). The point of NSS isn't to goose the economy. I wouldn't have accepted DoF's argument in that context either.

When people start talking about the benefits of a project in terms of economic benefit, though, opportunity cost ceases to be a strawman.

If people want to argue that there's some sort of strategic benefit to the HSR, they can try. A huge amount of money, sunk into transportation infrastructure which is highly inflexible, vulnerable to faults in the line, and can't be shared with other private and commercial users. A grave misallocation of capital.

Projects tend to overrun costs and schedules a lot, these days. Factor of 2? 3? 6? Numbers being floated for cost and benefits are the best cases proponents can massage, not worst.

Economic benefits isn't the point of NSS, but it is a reality is that is what actually got the policiticians onboard as the majority of them could not care less about the Navy, Coast guard, shipyard capacity, strategic objectives in general or anything beyond getting themselves re-elected. So what was effectively a side effect is what they actually pay attention to, and why the whole program is messaged the way it is.

Even with zero ITBs there is a huge economic benefit for any GoC project that employs thousands of people directly, and supports thousands of others indirectly.

Project 'overruns' are on theses multi generational programs are also far overhyped a lot of times, especially when the TBS continually adjusts what actually gets included in costings, and why the PBO essentially gave up when trying to compare cost of shipbuilding in Canada to other countries.

 

[YZT580]

I repeatedly argue for more roads and more buses in lieu of bespoke passenger rail solutions. Bus service levels, routes, and schedules are highly flexible, as are the uses of public roads. Roads are filled with commercial vehicles; passenger rail, none at all.

those are the arguments GM used to encourage cities to back off urban rail (trams) in favour of (wait for it) GM buses. There are numerous cities that now regret it. As for bespoke rail, having spent a number of years using the Belgian interurban system I would push for spending the 90 Billion into a rapidservice link between OW and Montreal, Peterborough/Toronto, London/Toronto, Edmonton/Calgary with service at least hourly and worry about the longer stretches once those were up and running problem free.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ooooo what's this ? Is PP coming after Fanjoy ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039731307039568123

 

[dapaterson]

It's like ignoring a hole in the roof and spending the money on new kitchen cabinets; sure, you get a good ROI on kitchen upgrades, but doesn't do anything for a leaking roof.

Keep talking like that and we'll assume you're from the Real Property group.

 

[dapaterson]

You are all missing the best benefit of train travel, you can have a bar car on your commute.

If you have a effective train network you don’t exactly need a personal vehicle, just rent one as needed. Just the savings in that alone are huge. Most people have car payments which are in the 500$+ range then insurance, then fuel per month. Train networks with occasionally renting comes up much cheaper than that.

A car is estimated at $1K/month all in (including payments, fuel, insurance, maintenance...). And that's after-tax dollars. Even if you end up spending $300 per month on taxis, trains and rentals, you're still well ahead. Where else can you get that kind of a pay increase?

 

[ytz]

OAS is a social safety net paid out of general revenues. When was started and for the majority of it's run it was funded with a ratio of 7 workers to 1 retiree. Demographics made OAS in its current form viable, and now they're making it non viable.

Yep. That's why I can't take the Chicken Little routine from some self-professed fiscal conservatives seriously. OAS is already $80B per year. Going to $100B per year in 2030. Not one of the people in this discussion supposedly concerned about spending want to touch that. Instead, they are oh so concerned about $60-90B spread over the next 15 years. The $1.4 Trillion on OAS we'll spend in the same timeframe? Not a peep. These people would rather have their pogey than their grand kids have good infrastructure. That's what it's really about. Not any supposed fiscal concern.

I will happily give up my OAS to make sure shit like this gets built so the next generation benefits.

It is interesting that no one has asked why they don't expropriate the current rail corridors from the railway companies and make them more efficient, rather than expropriating private lands.

I know, this would cause more harm than good to the economy, but you'd think someone would at least do the math to answer the question.

Few years ago this was discussed. There government went to an open bid, leaving the routing completely open in the hopes that one of the large rail operators might be interested in partnering on a solution like this. They weren't interested. And expropriating a primary corridor from two of the largest freight rail operators in the world and anchors from the economy is probably not a low risk option. God only knows how long that court fight would go. And after all that? You still may not get the geometry you need and now you have to expropriate in even more populated areas and do even more grade separation. It's not a clear cut easy solution.

those are the arguments GM used to encourage cities to back off urban rail (trams) in favour of (wait for it) GM buses. There are numerous cities that now regret it. As for bespoke rail, having spent a number of years using the Belgian interurban system I would push for spending the 90 Billion into a rapidservice link between OW and Montreal, Peterborough/Toronto, London/Toronto, Edmonton/Calgary with service at least hourly and worry about the longer stretches once those were up and running problem free.

A lot of North American cities looked very similar to Europe till about the 1920s. The auto industry famously colluded to get streetcars removed so they can sell buses and cars. They were actually convicted and fined for the conspiracy.

General Motors streetcar conspiracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Toronto is actually rather unique for not removing their streetcars.

PS. Alto has you one better. They have said half hourly service at peak (to enable peak business trips and exurban commutes) and hourly departures outside peak.

 

[lenaitch]

Accepted. You did quote me.

Fair. I find I sometimes pull a quote that is just in and around the current discussion rather than just make a 'raw' post.

 

[ArmyRick]

Lets take a pause on the HSR discussion. Part of the reason I really don't take discussions here too seriously anymore is this.

At work, I sometimes have long shifts of where I end up by circumstances not being busy. I took some time to re-read many years of postings and discussion threads, especially on the political topics.

Some of the trends I notice are disturbing. Many people here defend LPC government actions and decisions over and over again only to end up being wrong later. And to a much lesser extent the NDP.

Sooooo, when a few of us oppose hair brained Liberal schemes and I see an amazing amount of mental gymnastics being performed to back them up, its like wash and repeat. Over and over.

Back to HSR, wheres the money coming from?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Keep talking like that and we'll assume you're from the Real Property group.

Or CFHA!

 

[MilEME09]

It is interesting that no one has asked why they don't expropriate the current rail corridors from the railway companies and make them more efficient, rather than expropriating private lands.

I know, this would cause more harm than good to the economy, but you'd think someone would at least do the math to answer the question.

because of the easement, HSR needs double the standard easement, gotta turn? the horizontal curve easement for HSR can be as high as 600m for safety.

Feature	Standard Rail	High-Speed Rail
ROW Width	15–40 m	25–80 m
Curve Radius	300–2,000 m	3,500–7,000+ m
Easement Length	50–150 m	200–600+ m
Crossings	Allowed	None (grade-separated)
Fencing	Rare	Mandatory

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yep. That's why I can't take the Chicken Little routine from some self-professed fiscal conservatives seriously. OAS is already $80B per year. Going to $100B per year in 2030. Not one of the people in this discussion supposedly concerned about spending want to touch that. Instead, they are oh so concerned about $60-90B spread over the next 15 years. The $1.4 Trillion on OAS we'll spend in the same timeframe? Not a peep. These people would rather have their pogey than their grand kids have good infrastructure. That's what it's really about. Not any supposed fiscal concern.

I will happily give up my OAS to make sure shit like this gets built so the next generation benefits.

Ahem, excuse me. I right here would consider myself a fiscal conservative. And I 100% believe in changing or abolishing OAS.

I believe the boomers and before lived an opulent and glutenous lifestyle; mortgaging that on the the backs of the following generations. I think we should think long and hard about leveraging our future for those in their twilight years.

I am fine with social safety nets for those who are incapable physically or mentally from working and contributing. But for those who made choices not too, they should be a burden on their family, not the tax system, especially given the times and opportunities they lived through.

You can have my OAS too.

 

[lenaitch]

Few years ago this was discussed. There government went to an open bid, leaving the routing completely open in the hopes that one of the large rail operators might be interested in partnering on a solution like this. They weren't interested. And expropriating a primary corridor from two of the largest freight rail operators in the world and anchors from the economy is probably not a low risk option. God only knows how long that court fight would go. And after all that? You still may not get the geometry you need and now you have to expropriate in even more populated areas and do even more grade separation. It's not a clear cut easy solution.

The corridor at play is the CN Kingston Subdivision. No clue what its market value would be beyond 'a lot', and the government (which used to own CN, didn't want to so sold it, and probably doesn't want to again) would still have to give freight priority so they don't start crippling the economy. There might be a degree of improvement in VIA's on-time performance by removing some of the animosity CN has to being a landlord railway, but I'm not sure it would make much difference. As you say, the corridor limits potential speeds, both in terms of alignment and grade, but also factors such as turnout (switch) speeds and level crossings. Once you get about a certain speed, at-grade crossings are not allowed.

there is a ridiculous amount of decommissioned rail lines in canada, make the trains electric, set up a couple SMR to power the network and you would have cheap operating, hell, lets put it all underground to take weather out of the factor. It would be expensive as hell but imagine how much would be made if you say drilled through the mountains from calgary, went to Kelowna, then to Vancouver. could probably be in Vancouver in about 6h, less if you exceed 100km/h in a closed system

The problem with old right-of-ways is most are over a century old and built to accommodate track speeds of that era. Many, particularly in and around urban areas, have been built over, either completely or to the extent that you are back into the mass expropriation problem. The ones that were built into the rural areas served an economy and doesn't exist anymore.

An question that I have never clearly understood is whether railway actually own the land they sit on or just have a permanent easement from the government while it is operating. They are arguments supporting both sides. I assume those really close to the game know.

Boring through the mountains; yes, a completely different discussion.

Other than urban transit rail, which is still subsidized, I'm not aware of a rail line that stands on its own solely on passenger revenue.

 

[ArmyRick]

On another note, this the Liberal Minority Discussion thread,
in many instances I notice a crowd of people here will discuss at length any potential positives they LPC may be perceived or are actually doing.

But same crowd shys away from say the Court ruling on the emergencies act being illegal (whish is a big F-ing deal), Michael Ma whole fiasco on forced labour (so bad the CBC even called him out) or Carney starting to asked a lot more difficult discussions on cost of living, etc.

Call me an asshole and tell me if I am wrong but in my opinion, many of you won't discuss issues that cast shade on carney and the LPC.

 

[RangerRay]

This is a classic “Little Canada” vs “Big Canada” debate.

The “Little Canada” usually can’t see beyond their own parochial perspective and continue to see the country as a colonial backwater not worthy of a big project to get the country on a global facing. I often see this at the municipal level in Winnipeg whenever there is a proposal for better infrastructure. “Where do you think this is, Vancouver?” No, but it is a city of 3/4 of a million people, a provincial capital, a major transportation hub, and a major city of a G7 nation. It’s not a small town in some colonial backwater. There is no excuse to not have world class infrastructure other than parochialism and misplaced budget priorities. Maybe don’t rip up the same street every year for three years because Roads, Sewer and Hydro don’t talk to each other. Or maybe use better road building materials and techniques so the road lasts a little longer. There’s a reason why roads are better in Grand Forks and Fargo despite having the same climate as Winnipeg.

I live far away from this area and will probably never ride it. But I can see that it has the potential to be an economic boost to a very important part of the country, in turn boosting the entire country.

I would exclude property owners directly affected by this though. If this was going through my neighbourhood and my property was going to be expropriated, I’d be upset too, even if I could see the benefits. It would be nice if this could be avoided, but that’s not the real world unfortunately.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A car is estimated at $1K/month all in (including payments, fuel, insurance, maintenance...). And that's after-tax dollars. Even if you end up spending $300 per month on taxis, trains and rentals, you're still well ahead. Where else can you get that kind of a pay increase?

Depends on lifestyle. Most people with children seem to own at least one car.

Every time a discussion starts touting qualities that might appeal to single or otherwise childless persons, I wonder where all the people on this board who favour spending limited resources on pro-family policies have gone.